On Thu 13/Apr/2023 17:57:55 +0200 Dotzero wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 11:38 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:45 PM Steven M Jones <s...@crash.com> wrote:
In any case, are we really going to start suggesting that list operators
start rejecting messages sent from domains that publish a blocking policy,
as official guidance? (Now I'm looking ever so forward to catching up on
these other threads - what the heck are people seeing out there??)
Heck, MLMs should start rejecting messages sent from domains that publish a
blocking policy *when they fail authentication on entry*!!
Well, this WG is chartered to come up with some kind of standards track
solution to the problem. I don't see one in DMARCbis at the moment. Given
how long this WG has existed so far, that's a fairly glaring omission.
Doesn't seem to me this idea should be off the table just yet...
I don't think it should be off the table but believe it is only one of the
options that MLMs/forwarders have.
From: rewriting is the de-facto standard. In DMARCbis we can only substitute
"de-facto" with "proposed". Better methods, implying different, possibly
experimental, protocols are to be defined in separate documents.
Let me recall that when I proposed something like that, I was told that that
was phase II and the WG was then already in phase III. So, let's complete
DMARCbis /without cannibalizing the spec/ by saying that it MUST NOT be used
(as it is being used already).
If it will be possible to get back to indirect mail flows, there's more work to
do there.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
